The CHAIRMAN. As I understand your contention, Mr. Hillman, it is that you, as an observer, and as a member of the Labor Board, have observed about 20 percent of the industries of this country seeking to avoid the provisions of the N.R.A., and in obtaining that objective to avoid the provisions of the N.R.A. they have given the appearance of supporting section 7 (a) by organizing unions in their plants, but they did it solely for the purpose of appearing to support the law, and not for the purpose of giving the employees the independent rights that that provision gives them.

Mr. HILLMAN. The real purpose is to maintain their own open-shop policies under the cloak of company unions.

I don't know of any company union-I say I don't know of any, but there may be some-where the basis for the whole organization is not coercion. These people have got control of the men's jobs. Of course, any indication is a threat, a coercion.

The CHAIRMAN. It is gratifying to hear you state that in your judgment the largest percentage of the employers of the country desire to live up to the spirit of the law and would welcome legislation that would compel all employers to treat their employees equitably and justly.

Mr. HILLMAN. Exactly, Mr. Chairman. But I insist that the whole industry be required to do the same thing. After all, the basis of unfair competition, in a major part of the industry, is low wages that some manufacturers can enjoy because of their power to control labor, and because of that it creates an unfair competition. If competition is to go on, and I believe there is room for it, it ought not to be done at the expense of labor.

The CHAIRMAN. A well-organized union in an industry would insist upon the provisions of the code which relate to hours and wages being enforced.

Mr. HILLMAN. Of course.

The CHAIRMAN. And therefore it would make for uniform wages and uniform working conditions in all industries and remove the element of ruthless competition that has been so injurious.

Mr. HILLMAN. Exactly. Many instances have come to me where people have complained about the violation of the labor provisions in the code which is the law for the industry, and then they have come pleading to the people that they lodged the complaints with to withdraw them, because they knew they were going to be discharged. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hillman. Mr. Hotchkiss.

STATEMENT BY WILLARD E. HOTCHKISS, PRESIDENT, ARMOUR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CHICAGO

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hotchkiss, will you give us your full name? Mr. HOTCHKISS. Willard E. Hotchkiss.

The CHAIRMAN. Your present occupation or profession?

Mr. HOTCHKISS. I am President of the Armour Institute of Technology, Chicago. I do not represent anyone except myself. The CHAIRMAN. What is that institute?

Mr. HOTCHKISS. It is an engineering school, a 4-year undergraduate engineering college.

The CHAIRMAN. You are here in your personal capacity?

Mr. HOTCHKISS. I am here on an invitation.

suggested that I be invited, but I am here.

I do not know who

Senator WAGNER. I did.

Mr. HOTCHKISSs. I am very thankful, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hotchkiss, we will be glad to have your views. Mr. HOTCHKISS. I hope being here with Mr. Hillman will not induce me to make a speech. I have quite often, as he knows, made one after he made one.

I think I ought to give a little excuse for being here. I was secretary of the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board during the war. I was executive secretary of President Wilson's Second Industrial Conference in 1920. Between 1920 and 1925 I was director of the National Industrial Federation of Clothing Manufacturers, whose business it was to carry out the agreement with Mr. Hillman's union. So in that capacity I have represented employers that were working with the union. Last April, I think it was, Mr. Green did me the honor to write me. I think he wrote a great many other people in reference to this section 7 (a), which everyone, of course, recognized, anyone who had any dealings with the labor movement, was a very important part of the act, naturally, and he expressed anxiety in reference to the actions being taken, and I think the answer to the letter that he wrote was counselling caution. I raised the question at that time whether the labor movement, as it was at that time constituted, was prepared to digest an extremely rapid unionization of that part of the industry which was not then unionized.

Now since that time things have happened that have removed a part of my anxiety, by all odds the most important part of it. My peace of mind on that subject is the incorporation of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America into the A. F. of L. movement. Another one is the revival of membership in the United Mine Workers. Now there is a reason for that aside from the benefits which I think will come from injecting such leadership as represented by Mr. Hillman into the movement.

I

It seems to me that the bulk of the industries that are open-shop industries, so-called, with or without company unions, at the present time are industries in which unionism will have to be on the basis of an industrial union as distinguished from a craft or trade union. just cannot see the automobile industry working with the carpenters on one issue, and right next door the machinists and all of the different craft organizations it would be necessary to work with. I think the tendency, while it has not gone as far as I would like to see it go, I think the tendencies toward recognizing that fact within the labor movement itself, has been very noticeable during the past 6 months, and I sincerely hope it will continue.

Now I realize that a man who had his active connection with labor 7 or 8 years ago is likely to seem like a bit of ancient history, when it comes into the discussion of this. I remember when we were working over this industrial board, Mr. Oscar Strauss was a member of this commission of which Secretary Wilson was chairman. Mr. Strauss is one of the finest men in the world, but he was always talking in terms of 1912, and it was 1920 at that time, and sometimes it was not quite in keeping. He was a delightful man. I am just afraid I may be talking in terms of 1920 or 1925, when I was working with Mr. Hillman, but I am going to be very frank.

I would like to see the main issue to which this question is addressed, absence of compulsion, settled. I do not think there should be coer46652-34-PT 1-9

cion. I would like to see it settled in such a way that it would commend itself to the great body of employers represented in this 80 percent that Mr. Hillman speaks of, and all those who are dealing with unions at this time. I am just fearful if this act passes in its present form, that the result may be to precipitate more strikes than it will save necessarily, during the next 6 months.

It occurs to me that if there could be complete inquisitorial authority given to find out, in a given situation, whether there was coercion or not, and you could have a body of people representing distinctly organized labor with competent scholarship at the present time and I have that man in mind, namely Mr. Wolman-a board that would have at its disposal a man like Mr. Wolman-let us take another professor, I am more or less of a professor myself-take a man like Mr. Slichter of Harvard University, and then let us take somebody that has been associated with an open-shop industry, whose opinion the community values on this subject, like President Stanley King of Amherst

The CHAIRMAN. I am glad you have faith in Massachusetts.

Mr. HOTCHKISS. Mr. King is not a citizen of Massachusetts, he is a citizen of the world-if they could have power in the meantime under the Board-I am not trying to rule you out, Senator, I think it ought to be under your Board-but if they could have full power to get a deliberate, well-developed orientation in all the facts, and then bring this bill up at the next session of Congress, with such modifications as might come in the meantime, I would be frank to say I would feel a little easier about it. Maybe I am old fashioned. Maybe my reaction is the result of working in a situation that was current 5 or 6 years ago. I know how very fast we have been going. I think we are going in the right direction, but I am very, very solicitous about the same thing Mr. Hillman is solicitous about. I am solicitous about the N.R.A. program, and I think we have got to find some way or other of trying to avoid what seems to me is likely to be an epidemic of strikes this spring. Of course, we probably shall not be able to avoid it altogether. We hope we can do things better than our fathers did, but usually when recovery starts there are strikes. There have been in the past.

Now I am a little solicitous about this particular measure. not pretend to have studied it, Senators, in its entirety. I received the copy you sent me on Saturday. I read it with a good deal of care and I am not a lawyer-but I should dislike to see the group of people who are represented by men like Mr. Hillman, come to look to the Government instead of to Mr. Hillman's organization for their primary protection.

Government standards must, in the nature of things, be minimum standards, and when you enforce minimum standards there is a great danger that you will have maximum standards. I am solicitous not for the present, but for the future, in some regards, in respect to the definition of an employee.

We have a right wing and a left wing in our labor movement at this time. I think it is wholesome that we should have a right wing and a left wing. I do not think there is any particular reason why we should not have a wing that is considerably a left wing. Suppose we have a left wing strike and those people are refused by people who are in good standing with the regularly constituted unions? I

am a little afraid that definition of "employee" leaves room for a little change to protect them. Not being a lawyer I say that with a good deal of hesitancy, but I think that point should be safeguarded with a good deal of care to be sure you do not get a different kind of coercion there that will not permit a normal evolution of the labor

Now, as I say, these are just impressions that come out of the long handling of situations somewhat similar to these that we are talking about. Certainly it would be well for the clothing industry, if it were possible that the other 20 percent could be represented by Mr. Hillman's organization.

I

I do not think there is any question but what we have industries here in this country that are in that condition. Certainly there were a great many so-called company unions long before the N.R.A. was ever passed that were phoney. There is no question about that. think there were some that were sincere. I think there were some that represented a constructive effort, that might have been ill-advised, that might have been trying to get something that they could not get.

I think I know the firm to which Mr. Hillman refers in Cleveland. The management of that firm has a good deal of different orientation today than it had 10 years ago, or 15 years ago. It had a sort of idealistic orientation at that time.

It seems to me that we want to make haste, but we want to make it not to rapidly. So I am frank to say, if we could get some way of dealing with the subject effectively, the subject of coercion, so that section 7 (a) could be enforced as reasonably well as these things are usually enforced-I do not expect perfection, and I do not believe anyone else does, in the enforcement of a law and I think we should spend a little more time on the drafting of such sections as the employee sections, and the sections that have to do with what constitutes fair practice.

It is a ticklish thing to create a new set of offenses in the law. It seems to me a little more time should elapse, and a little more study should be given to it. I do not claim to be an authority on the subject. I came here because I was invited, and I am glad I came.

The CHAIRMAN. It is gratifying to have you feel free to make any suggestions you choose.

Senator WAGNER. Mr. Hotchkiss, you suggested a sort of an inquisitorial body. May I ask you to explain that?

Mr. HOTCHISS. Sometimes when the law does not pass in the form it is originally intended some very good results are secured by starting women going.

come constructive criticism, as you know. Concrete suggestion.

t. I am not clear about. Supposing nd discovers that in a plant there workers claim they have no opporrded the facilities for organization, organization they are dismissed, ant a free election in which they you inquire, when you find that hat can be done?"

Mr. HOTCHKISS. Hasn't the Board at the present time power to supervise an election?

Senator WAGNER. Yes; but supposing the employer says, "You cannot hold an election, we will not permit you to hold an election?" I am giving you actual cases now.

Mr. HOTCHKISS. I think it should have authority to see that a fair election is held.

Senator WAGNER. That is one of the powers provided for in this bill.

Mr. HOTCHKISS. I am not saying I would throw the whole bill in the wastebasket pending further investigation. My opinion is that you have power to supervise an election. I do not think the time has come to attempt outright to put the power of the Federal Government behind the condemnation, willy-nilly, of the company unions. I think you have got to focus attention, for the present, at least, on the question of whether the employees did have opportunity to express themselves, and I would like to see the power of the Government put in to ascertaining the matters of fact, and seeing that fair administration does take place. I think it is somewhat shorter than going on to the details.

Senator WAGNER. If you want to keep the workers reasonably satisfied and do not want to intensify this unrest, you cannot leave these things suspended in the air. I have in mind four large employers of labor now, all of whom say, "No," to a mere election which the workers ask so that they may determine their representatives, and I know one instance where there were over 100,000 men involved.

Mr. HOTCHKISS. I think you have either got to repeal 7 (a), or else give the workers complete power to hold elections without coercion.

Senator WAGNER. Do you think there ought to be a repeal of section 7 .(a)?

Mr. HOTCHKISS. I say in testing out these things you have got to see that there is a fair election. I will grant you that, but I think there is a good deal more in the bill than that.

Senator WAGNER. Now you take the case where the companydominated union exists, the worker would have no choice. This legislation only affords a worker an opportunity to make a choice. It is up to him to choose. As a matter of a social and economic problem, do you think it is desirable to have the employer dominate the instrumentality that is set up to protect the worker?

Mr. HOTCHKISS. I think if you have a fair election he cannot dominate it, but it seems to me at this time the thing has to have a chance to grow. Now the company union movement has had a mushroom growth since the N.R.A., but there were a lot of company unions before that time. Of course, as I said before, some of them were phoney-most of them were. I think more of them, perhaps, did not think the problem through. They said, "We want to get along with the employees."

The CHAIRMAN. You mean "employers.

Senator WAGNER. You heard this morning a number of employee representative plans, as they call them, under which the worker is limited in the choice of his representative to one that has been employed there for a year, of a certain age, and all that.

Mr. HOTCHKISS. No; you cannot do that here.